alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of Sky Financial Group, Inc.:

Registration Statement No. 333-125403 on Form S-8

Registration Statement No. 333-117186 on Form S-3

Registration Statement No. 333-117185 on Form S-8

Registration Statement No. 333-117184 on Form
S-8

Registration Statement No. 333-108810 on Form S-8

Registration Statement No. 333-65492 on Form S-8

Registration Statement No. 333-59312 on Form S-8

Registration Statement No. 333-67233 on Form S-8

Registration Statement No. 333-47315 (Post-Effective Amendment No.1 on Form S-8 to Form S-4)

Registration Statement No. 333-60741 (Post-Effective Amendment No.1 on Form S-8 to Form S-4)

Registration Statement
No. 333-64127 on Form S-3

Registration Statement No. 333-18867 on Form S-8

Registration Statement No. 333-138741 on Form S-3

of
our reports dated February 22, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Sky Financial Group, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), Shared-Based Payment, in 2005), and managements report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sky Financial
Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|                                 
|/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP        
|Deloitte & Touche LLP            
|Cleveland, Ohio February 22,
2007
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATIONS BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Education Management Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal
quarter ended September 30, 2010 on the date hereof (the Report), I, Todd S. Nelson, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certify in such capacity, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company for the periods reflected therein.
 Date: December 10, 2010 By:
    
    /s/ Todd S. NelsonTodd S. NelsonChief Executive Officer
  6
EXHIBIT 23







                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report  included  in this  Annual  Report on Form  10-K  into (i) the  Company's
previously  filed  Registration  Statements  on Form S-8,  File  Nos.  33-37325,
33-39416,  33-48752,  33-48753 and 33-80479,  and (ii) the Company's  previously
filed Registration Statement on Form S-3, File No. 333-8851.



                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

                                             /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Washington, D.C.
March 20, 1998
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________

)

JERRY E. ROBERTSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 20-3168 (UNA)

)

JEFF. CO. ATTY’S OFFICE, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The plaintiff’s claims pertain to defendant’s efforts to 

collect unpaid child support.

Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, 

laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In addition, federal district courts 

have jurisdiction over civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the suit 

is between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The complaint does not 

articulate a claim arising under the United States Constitution or federal law; therefore, the 

plaintiff does not demonstrate federal question jurisdiction. While amount in controversy 

allegedly exceeds $75,000, because the parties are citizens of Kentucky, the plaintiff fails to 

establish diversity jurisdiction. Furthermore, because none of the parties appear to reside in the 

District of Columbia, and because none of the events giving rise to the plaintiff’s claims occurred 

here, it is doubtful that this district is the proper venue for resolution of the plaintiff’s claims. 

NOV - 5 2020
The Court will grant the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss 

the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An Order is issued 

separately.

DATE: November 4, 2020 /s/

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON

United States District Judge
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code

The undersigned, being the Principal Executive Officer of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership"), hereby certifies
that the Partnership's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008, filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: July 29, 2008

By:

/s/STEPHEN J. J. LETWINStephen J. J. Letwin Managing Director
(Principal Executive Officer)


---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, A. Mark Young, certify that:

(1)  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of E Com Ventures, Inc.

(2)  Based on my knowledge,  this  quarterly  report does not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to
     make the statements  made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such
     statements  were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
     this quarterly report; and

(3)  Based on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
     information  included  in this  quarterly  report,  fairly  present  in all
     material respects the financial  condition,  results of operations and cash
     flows of the  registrant  as of, and for,  the  periods  presented  in this
     quarterly report.



Date:  September 10, 2004



/s/ A. Mark Young
-----------------------------
A. Mark Young
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, René Lerer,
as Chief Executive Officer of Magellan Health Services, Inc. (the Company)
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  (1)           the accompanying Form 10-K
report for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2)           the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.  Date: February 27, 2009  /s/ RENÉ LERERName: René LererTitle: Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6993

JOEY D. SMALLS, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge. (CA-02-2212-8-22) Submitted: December 3, 2003 Decided: January 9, 2004

Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joey D. Smalls, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Joey D. Smalls, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smalls has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
H. Res. 945 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 6, 2016. 

Resolved, That a revised edition of the Rules and Manual 

of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress be printed as a House document, and that 

three thousand additional copies shall be printed and bound 

for the use of the House of Representatives, of which nine 

hundred eighty copies shall be bound in leather with thumb 

index and delivered as may be directed by the Parliamentarian of the House. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       4,847,849
<SECURITIES>                                    99,603
<RECEIVABLES>                                  613,141
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,560,593
<PP&E>                                      15,441,677
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,009,008
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,993,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          364,999
<BONDS>                                      1,009,977
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,618,286
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,993,262
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,780,519
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,052,416
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              77,457
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (349,354)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (349,354)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (349,354)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**ORDER**

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22

- 05 51 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. JADE HUNTER KERR ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension

o f t ime to and including June 8 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve his opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 2 2024

05/02/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0551
FI RST DI VI SI ON DOYLE, C. J. , REESE and SELF, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s June 20, 2017



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 5 A1 28 1 . GLISPIE v . THE STATE. D-0 2 0 C
D O Y LE , Ch ief J ud g e. In Gl i s p ie v. S t a t e , 1 t h e Su p rem e Co u rt o f Geo rg ia affi rm ed i n p art an d rev ers ed
i n p art t h i s Co urt ’ s o p i n i o n i n Gl i s p i e v. S t a t e . 2 Acco rd i n g l y , we v acat e Di v i s i o n 1 (b ) (i i) o f ou r p ri o r o p i n i on , an d we ad o p t t h e op i ni o n of t h e Su p rem e Co u rt i n i t s p l ace. Th e ju d g m en t o f t h e t ri al co u rt i s affi rm ed

. Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Rees e a nd

S el f , JJ., co n cu r .

1 3 0 0 Ga. 1 2 8 (7 9 3 SE2 d 3 8 1 ) (2 0 1 6 ).

2 3 3 5 Ga. Ap p . 1 7 7 (7 7 9 SE2 d 7 6 7 ) (2 0 1 5 ).
|                | By:    | /s/ Michael L. Middleton                                    |
|---------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |   | Name:  Michael L. Middleton                       |
|                |   | Title: President and Chief Executive Officer                |
|                |   |                                                        |
|                | By:    | /s/ William J. Pasenelli                                    |
|                |   | Name:  William J. Pasenelli                       |
|                |   | Title: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                |   |                                                        |
| Date: March 4, 2011 |   |                                                        |

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Unify Corporation (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Todd E. Wille, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

| | (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of   section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and                             
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                                                                                                                
| | (2) the information contained in the Report fairly   presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of   operations of the Registrant.

|Dated:  March 16, 2006 | /s/ TODD E. WILLE      
|---------------------- | -----------------------
|                       |                        
|                       | Todd E. Wille          
|                       | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Unify Corporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 16, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-21248

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANDRE ESTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-02-CR-307-1

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appointed counsel for Andre Ester has requested leave to

withdraw as counsel and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ester has not filed a

response. Our independent review of the brief and the record

discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion

for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 of
Belden & Blake Corporation;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)), for the registrant and have:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: May 11, 2011
    By:
    /s/ Mark A. HouserMark A. Houser, Chief Executive Officer, Chairmanof the Board of Directors and Director
#### Richard Eugene PUTNAM, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12488.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 6, 1957.

*1118Robert H. Neptune, Bartlesville, for plantiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

NIX, Judge.

Richard Eugene Putnam, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was charged by information in the District Court of Washington County with the crime of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor after having been previously convicted of the same crime in 1952; thereby prosecuted in the case at bar for a felony by virtue of second and subsequent offense. A jury was waived and said cause tried to the court who found the defendant guilty and assessed his punishment at one year in the state penitentiary and to pay a fine of $1.

The defendant appeals upon the sole proposition that the court erred in not sustaining the defendant’s demurrer to the information on the grounds that the court was without jurisdiction of the..subject matter in that there had been no subsequent offense under the 1955 drunk driving act. It is conceded by the defendant that he plead guilty to drunk driving in 1952 but contends that said conviction was previous to the enactment of the 1955 Act and consequently, could not be said to be the basis for a subsequent offense prosecution.

This court has recently passed upon this question in two cases, Dollie v. State, 316 P.2d 208, 212, and Miller v. State, 316 P.2d 203, 204. In the Dollie case this court said:

> “The Act of 1955 did not create or define a new or independent crime, but said statute describes circumstances wherein one found guilty of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated may be more severly punished because of a previous conviction.”

In the Miller case, supra, this court said:

> “S.L. 1955, P. 263 (47 O.S.Supp. 1955 § 93), prescribing heavier punishment on a second conviction for violation of provisions of ‘this Act’, comprehends a prior conviction under the Act, 47 O.S.1951 § 93, amended, as it expressly in heading amends section 93 of title and does not merely refer to prior conviction under S.L. 1955 P. 263, 47 O.S.Supp.1955 § 93.”

In view of the fact that this question is thoroughly discussed in the two cases herein cited, it is unnecessary to lengthen this decision with additional comment and in accordance with said decisions, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

BRETT, P. J., and POWELL, J.,' concur.